I agree. I don't think any TV contest can be a serious contest purely because of the fact that it is a TV show.

Eurovision is a good example. People in the UK want the songs to be 'credible' (even though there are actually good songs in the contest), but if that happened then it would be boring and the whole style and tone of the contest would be gone. It's good because it is a TV extravaganza first and foremost and not a proper song contest. It's a shame people in the UK have the wrong attitude towards eurovision because eurovision itself and eurovision fans don't take it seriously, it's just a great party with glitz, glitter and obsurdity . This is how SCD should be.

We should just enjoy all TV contests for being light entertainment, be enthusiastic and get caught up in it, but don't take it seriously because then there would be no fun involved would there? That's what puts me off watching XF & BGT because there is always an air of seriousness and being full of itself.

Amen to that EuroChris

As one who is old enough to remember when it was a singing contest with 'credible' songs, I have to disagree about Eurovision - the whole style and tone of the contest has gone.

Originally the challenge was to sing a song that would appeal to people who speak different languages and I think this is still the case.

The problem is that over the years the numerous changes to the rules about whether or not a country had to sing a sing in one of its own languages has ruined the competition, to the point where now the competition bears little resemblance to the original show.

Also the number of countries eligible to participate now makes the contest a farce for many reasons.

That's what Eurovision is these days - a farce.

I don't want SCD to end up that way.

I think the only thing Strictly Come Dancing NEEDS is a better quality of stars.

If they could get just one BIG name, then ratings would climb. Imagine for example if Posh were to do it. Ratings would go through the roof. (I know she wouldnt, im just using her as an example)

Yes I can understand this, but it has had to change because in the 90's and early 00's it became really dowdy and old fashioned, the new changes have revitalised the competition and doubled total viewer numbers across the continent from 60m to 120m making it the most watched TV production in the world.

It's now an extravaganza, a fun 3-nights a year. Compare that to how it used to be with an orchestra, audience full of stuck up people, theatres being used as the venue. Horrible and old fashioned.

SCD is in the same place where eurovision was in the late 90's and early 00's in the sense that it hasn't moved forward and is quite dowdy. The BBC need to make it more slick and glamorous, ditch TV Centre studio and make it more fun.

I don't think it had to change - the change just happened with all the messing about with whether or not a song could be sung in English or not. The 1970s was a great era for Eurovision (e.g. ABBA).

The most boring years of Eurovision were from 1977 to 1997, when each country had to sing in a language of that country - and the competition began to die. When English was not allowed as an alternative to a national language, the way to get over the language problem was to make the performance rather than the song memorable. As more and more countries took part, cultural differences, nationalism, politics and partisanship started playing a far greater role.

By 1997 the damage was done, so what we have now is an extravaganza of extremism which is so fashionable and popular these days (e.g. Lady Gaga) which has nothing to do with song.

Just my 10p of course.

Moving it around the UK seems to be a good option. It would give people across the UK some chance of going to one of the live shows


Perhaps London, Cardiff or Bristol, Birmingham, Newcastle & Glasgow.

I don't think it had to change at all - if anything many more people have far less respect for it now than at any point in the past because it's not classy, it's not funny and it's certainly not showcasing much talent anymore, with a few exceptions.

If Strictly is taken on the tacky road that Eurovision has gone down, then it will lose all credibility and will be consigned to the archives within a couple of years. The whole appeal of SCD is that it showcases dancing as it should be, rather than in a jazzed-up and dumbed-down format By nature SCD is more serious as it's a job for the professionals, not just something they do to show off their talent or entertain people, but something they are passionate about and take very seriously, and don't want to see belittled by ridiculous format changes the show doesn't need.

I'd hate SCD to go down the Eurovision road. As Mystic says, one of SCD's strengths is the quality of the dancing - and quantity of that quality.

I sort of agree with the 'tacky' label to an extent, but it has become more spectacular. However, the Norwegian organisers are going for a more 'back-to-basics' approach this year to make it more warmer and family friendly like how it used to be which is a good move. I prefer my entertainment shows this way as I assume you do.

I completely agree with what you are saying with regards to SCD, my point was that eurovision changed to suit the taste of the audience and has evolved which is what strictly should do, not major changes but just a few slight touches.

The BBC can make SCD more slick but still classy and glamorous and make it more fun and have fewer contestants.

Did you watch the last series, did you not see how stale it was. the band, singers,celebs, dancers, judges, set all need improvement.

The slot its in has nothing to do with it.

Whose going to pay for the transport, feeding and housing the production team, celebs, dancers and judges.

I can see the Daily mail headlines now. ''Beeb waste all our money on lavish hotels for Strictly''.

It wouldn't have to be for the entire series, maybe the last four weeks. It won't cost that much. SCD needs a bigger budget anyway.

100% agree

Are you serious do you know the scale of the strictly production, costs of booking venues, how long it takes to set up a set and cameras in a strange venue every week. The production team would have to stay on the road for most of the week if it went on the road for 4 weeks.

Pointlessly moving the show across the country isnt going to boost the show, any extra money will be spent on a new permanent or revamped studio and improving the celebs as Broadcast magazine said this week.

If good ideas such as having some of the heats in different cities is put down just on the argument of cost, then there would be no point of trying to make TV shows different and exciting. My main bug bear about British TV is lack of budget and creativity.

On this we do agree!

Indeed.

I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference actually - a lot of the people I came to love on SCD were those I'd never heard of before - I think you need some people you've heard of but a big name does more harm than good - Emma Bunton nice lady that she was - everyone knew she was going to half decent at least because of the stage school and pop band cheography and because she was a big name I think it was a big reason why she over-marked and over-hyped (some people have said that the footage was always there to show her a positive light which I think is probably true) a tad.

I'm not sure the tastes of the SCD audience really have evolved. Then again, I'm not sure Eurovision tastes ever changed in the way the producers of the show guessed they had, hence its decline in popularity.

I do agree with the second bit though - minor changes would indeed help the show

I didn't read what the magazine said but do wonder how you can improve the celebs?

I know there has been mention of how DWTS gets bigger stars than SCD but so what?
Yes bigger names may get bigger ratings but would't that also just increase the levels of votes based on popularity than their dancing?
That is of course the people they get are actually big names. When you look at some of the names that have appeared on shows such as celeb big brother and the jungle thing you do have to wonder?

George Hamilton - Pretty much an unknown here.
George Takei - Famous for a TV show he made over 40 years ago.
Janice Dickenson - Who?
Stephen Baldwin - Can you name one of his films?

As far as going around the country they have Pebble Mill in Birmingham they can use. I'm sure there are other BBC studios as well.

I agree that the tastes of the SCD audience hasn't changed but I do think it has become stale and yes, a few slight changes and freshing up would do the world of good such as a bigger studio etc. If anything, a lot of the pointless changes they have made these past few years have alienated the viewers. I think that they should go back to the original format (eg. number of contestants, voting format etc.) but update the production standards of the show and then hopefully, they should be on to a winner. I also think that the BBC need to ditch 'So You Think You Can Dance?' and 'Let's Dance' because it saturates the dance contest market and in a way, makes SCD less special and less of an event. Having 3 dance contests broadcast one after another is just ridiculous and shows lack of creativity on behalf of BBC entertainment.

With regards to eurovision, the ratings have actually increased in the UK since around 2002 and last year got a peak share of 52% (9.8m viewers) which is very good and not many shows manage that. However, the interest that the British public has overall in the contest and the British song has gone down because of the appalling and outdated way that the BBC handles the contest every year, they're one of the worst broadcasters in ESC even though they are part of the 'Big 4'.

It just goes to show that BBC entertainment seem to ruin everything they get their hands on.

I think the key point there is "came to love". I'm the same - a lot of the people I liked the most on Strictly are people of whom I had limited exposure to beforehand : Jade Johnson, Matt Di'Angelo, Jodie Kidd, RampantPants. But if I'm a casual viewer, I'm not going to tune in based on those names.

I guess it depends how much you think casual viewers are drawn in by big names - I was never too sure one way or the other, but the massive success of the current US series (compared to the near-abject failure of the last one) in the ratings seems to suggest it plays a big role. Even if people are just tuning in because they dislike them - from reading Internet fanboards as many (if not far more) people are actually tuning in to see Kate Gosselin suffer as are rooting for her.

Certainly I don't think Emma Bunton (who I did think was incredibly over-rated as a dancer although she seemed like a very nice woman) did the show any harm. A bit of conflict and someone to root against as well as for is never a bad thing (and she beat Internet (and one of my) favourites Louisa Lytton in the vote, so it's not as though she was without fans.) If you can get a Spice Girl on (4 years ago, maybe not so much now), it only makes your show seem like a bigger deal, and people follow big deals around, often whether they particularly like them or not.

One way you can improve the celebs is to do what DTWS has done this series. Having just watched the start of the new series, it is already clear that there is only one no hoper (80 year old Astronaut Buzz Aldrin), as everyone else did a pretty good job for that stage of the competition.

As I've said before, we can't always know who will show an aptitude for dancing before the series starts, but the contestants could at least look like they have the level of fitness to last the series.

Big names help for sure, but it isn't the be all and end all.

I'm looking forward to the rest of DWTS this series because it looks like is going to be a fairly tight competition.